ORIGINAL COMPANY-CONTEXT PRACTICE
Explain missing documents without making an approval decision
Original practice scenario: A hypothetical banking application portal checks whether a submission contains required documents. Requirements depend on applicant type and submission date. Design an explainable rules engine.
Written for independent practice using company context; this is not a verified question from a company interview.
A REASONED APPROACH
Model answer.
Separate document completeness from substantive application approval. A technically complete file set can still require authorized review, and an unreadable file is different from an absent one.
Work through it
- Version the requirement matrix by applicant category and effective date, validating the category and date before selecting applicable document rules.
- Identify submitted document type, version and readability status, distinguishing absent, expired, conflicting and not-yet-reviewed evidence in the result.
- Return stable rule identifiers and specific next actions, retaining the original requirement version when the applicant resubmits or policy changes.
Tradeoffs to discuss
- Strict required-document rules improve consistency but need clear exception handling; manual discretion supports unusual cases while requiring accountable review.
Common pitfalls
- Do not mark an unavailable parsing service as a passed content check.
- A later policy version must not silently redefine why an earlier submission was classified incomplete.